On October 8, 2001, Pulandian City, Liaoning Provincial People's Procuratorate to & ldquo; the defendant Cui Qing guilty of embezzlement & rdquo; Pulandian City People's court to the prosecution; a verdict to prosecute the content to be identified: defendant Cui Qing respectively in September 1998 January 17, 1999, 4, secretly in the Commercial Bank of Dalian, Dalian China Merchants Bank opened a personal intensive care and a personal credit card account. From September 1998 to 2000 years 3 months (18 months). Cui Qingli used as Pulandian City owned construction company eighteenth Engineering Department cashier facilities, without the capital of the company 3438378 in the form of a cheque into the two individual account, which transferred to Dalian urban credit agency a person intensive care totaling 25 pen 2070600 yuan and transferred to Dalian, China Merchants Bank credit card account for a total of 27 pen 1367778 yuan (total 3438378 yuan) is the illegal possession. August 21, 2002, Pulandian City People's court sentenced the defendant to the defendant Cui Qing sentenced to 15 years in prison, Cui Qing refused to accept the appeal. We are involved in the case at this time.
After the intervention of the case we found that although Pulandian City owned construction company is a collective enterprise, but file material did not any units and other individuals to run Pulandian City Construction Engineering Corporation eighteenth engineering investment of relevant evidence. Between them is essentially an affiliated relationship, and in this case the defendant Cui Qing is to have the eighteenth Engineering Department of people's wife. In this way, she even if the occupation, the occupation of the family property, so can not constitute the crime of embezzlement. In the second instance court of second instance court accepted our opinion after the second trial judge. On November 14, 2002, Dalian City Intermediate People's Court (2002) Daxing, the final word no. 356, criminal verdict of the case to & ldquo; Pulandian City owned construction company eighteenth Engineering Department is affiliated to the enterprise, the premises of the assets is the nature of what facts are not clear, lack of evidence & rdquo; grounds for retrial. In the retrial process, we carried out in accordance with the various work of investigation and evidence collection, investigation: (1), Pulandian City owned construction company general manager's signature settle all taxes, management fees of the written proof. This is further evidence of the affiliation between them the relations; (2) the defendant Cui Qing been indicted on charges of embezzlement during personally fill in, the personal credit card account to the eighteenth engineering play and fetched a single. This can be an indirect way to deny her subjective intent.
2003 March 13, Temple City Inspection Institute and new & ldquo; allegedly falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax & rdquo; Li Changdong and Cui Qing; a new accusation, Temple City Court on April 16 court retrial the case (see defense word). Pulandian City Court to Cui Qing guilty of the crime of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax, sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years; embezzlement do found not guilty. Cui Qing still refuses to accept the appeal.
On October 28, 2003, Dalian City Intermediate People's court once again takes & ldquo; Xukai VAT invoice crime facts unclear, insufficient evidence & rdquo; on the grounds cassation, remand. Again remanded retrial, we have found important: (1) in the accused the defendant Cui Qinghuo with another defendant to Cui Qing husband's company Xukai value added tax special invoice during the late, Cui Qing has with her husband's feelings rupture and run away, her subjective and should not, objectively could not do again to the crime; (2) Pulandian City Mechanical and electrical equipment installation company (false) with Dalian shipbuilding plant (receive the invoice unit) is the existence of objective facts of the transaction (labor), identification of & ldquo; false & rdquo; no basis in fact.
Pulandian city in January 5, 2004 second court retrial hearing, a guilty verdict in January 17th. The defendant Cui Qing “ the crime of VAT invoices from the original ” 5 year prison sentence commuted to 10 years. The defendant Cui Qing refused to accept the appeal, we have issued a defense opinion (see two).
defense ideas On the crime of embezzlement, the first instance verdict was found guilty. There is evidence that the defendant in the case of the eighteenth works on account of the money into their credit card accounts and personal accounts. But due to the defendant in this case with run Pulandian City Construction Engineering Corporation eighteenth engineering have Department of the relationship between husband and wife, this cause our attention. We believe that in this case, whether the defendant constitutes the & ldquo; embezzlement & rdquo; the key is the & ldquo; Occupation & rdquo; nature of money, and nature of Pulandian City owned construction company eighteenth engineering decided that the nature of these payments. Therefore, we must closely around the nature of the enterprise to investigate and obtain evidence.
A & ldquo; & rdquo; of the crime of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax; the prosecution's evidence really fully, to prove the facts of the crime. But we also noticed that the prosecution's evidence does not prove the criminal behavior in this case the defendant - our client. Due to our client - the defendant together with the & ldquo; false & rdquo; owner of unit is the relationship between husband and wife and there is evidence to prove that the & ldquo; false & rdquo; during the couple feelings have been broken, are divorcing. This important fact should be the focus of our defense.
A defense (second first instance):
By the case of the defendant Cui Qing commissioned, Kyoto, Beijing law firm assigned Tian Wenchang, Cao Shuchang two lawyers as the suspected of job occupation, value added tax (VAT) incident retrial (first instance), the defender, according to participants in the case of the trial. After the intervention, we will